The Supreme Court ruled that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) can mark appearances only for lawyers who actually appear and argue in a case. The Court emphasized that High Courts and District Courts follow a similar practice, disallowing multiple counsel from marking appearances. This reinforces the need for a structured and consistent approach in court proceedings. The ruling aims to maintain procedural discipline and avoid unnecessary representation.
New Delhi: The ongoing debate over the marking of lawyers‘ appearances in Supreme Court cases continued on Thursday, with the Bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi reaffirming that only those lawyers authorized to argue cases will have their names entered into the record.
Joined by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the Bench referenced Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, asserting that allowing assisting lawyers who do not actively argue to mark their appearances would be unjust to those who do.
Justice Trivedi remarked,
“The Rules clearly say whose appearance should be marked. Just because there is no bar, does not mean there is no limit. We will strictly go by the Rules.”
Also Read: [Breaking] Major Technical Disruption in Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam
The Court also pointed out that High Courts and District Courts do not permit multiple counsels to mark appearances, stressing the need for a structured approach.
Despite some differing opinions, the Bench emphasized that their aim was not adversarial but focused on maintaining consistency and fairness in court procedures.
Justice Trivedi assured,
“We have no personal interest in this. Whatever we are doing, we are doing for the institution. Where we are needed to protect the lawyers, we have,”
In September 2020, the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to investigate a case where a litigant denied filing a special leave petition (SLP) and claimed he had not hired any lawyers. This led the Bench to issue strict instructions to Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) to ensure that only authorized lawyers marked their appearances on specific days.
Following this, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought a modification of that order. On Thursday, the Court heard joint submissions from the SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) regarding the issue.
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Calls for Accountability of Advocates on Record (AoRs)
A primary concern raised by the bar associations was that AoRs must submit their appearances via a digital link before 11:30 AM, leaving no room for corrections. Counsel argued that this rigid system could exclude advocates who were physically present in court but whose names were not recorded.
It was proposed that AoRs should be allowed to submit a physical appearance slip in line with Supreme Court rules to address this issue.
The discussion also included whether an AoR could authorize another AoR to appear and argue on their behalf. The Court reviewed Supreme Court Rules Order IV, Rule 1B, with Justice Trivedi asking counsel to read it alongside Rule 20. She noted,
“An AoR who has already signed the vakalatnama can only entrust their authority to another AoR. Otherwise, what is the point of the AoR exam?”
Justice Trivedi clarified that while a client does not need the prior AoR’s authorization to change representation, an AoR cannot delegate their authority over a case to a non-AoR.
The hearing on this matter will continue.
An Advocate-on-Record (AoR) is a lawyer authorized to file and plead cases before the Supreme Court of India. Not every lawyer can act as an AoR; they must qualify through a specialized examination and fulfill certain requirements.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
